Posted
by
Soulskillon Thursday March 29, 2012 @08:13AM
from the with-only-a-wetsuit-and-a-pair-of-flippers dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos plans to retrieve the F-1 engines that rocketed astronaut Neil Armstrong and his crew toward the moon in 1969. 'We're making plans to attempt to raise one or more of them from the ocean floor,' Bezos wrote in his blog at BezosExpeditions.com. 'We don't know yet what condition these engines might be in — they hit the ocean at high velocity and have been in salt water for more than 40 years. On the other hand, they're made of tough stuff, so we'll see.' Bezos wrote that he was five years old when Armstrong made history during the Apollo 11 mission by becoming the first person to set foot on the moon, and 'without any doubt it was a big contributor to my passions for science, engineering, and exploration.' Bezos stressed that he is using private funds to try to raise the F-1 engines from their resting places 14,000 feet (4,267 meters) below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, and that they remain the property of NASA. 'I imagine that NASA would decide to make it available to the Smithsonian (National Air and Space Museum) for all to see.' Bezos's efforts come just days after Titanic director James Cameron became the first person in 40 years to descend to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the ocean's deepest point, in a privately-funded expedition."

Can we please go back to decent central funding of scientific endeavour - particularly in space - rather than all this stupid pet projects from people who got lucky and have more money than sense? The Soviets dragged themselves from backwater feudal estate to technocratic superpower in 20 years - and China similarly - because they understood the value of education and science. They didn't think that "the market" would advance them.

Money is only wasted if you throw it in a pile and burn it. If it gets spent on something, regardless of how silly, then it stays in circulation; somebody will be using it to buy groceries, pay the mortgage, take his kids to the doctor, etc. A bunch of people will be employed on this project, and a bunch of companies will be selling goods and services. This is exactly the kind of stuff we want rich people to be doing with their money.

Money is only wasted if you throw it in a pile and burn it. If it gets spent on something, regardless of how silly, then it stays in circulation; somebody will be using it to buy groceries, pay the mortgage, take his kids to the doctor, etc. A bunch of people will be employed on this project, and a bunch of companies will be selling goods and services. This is exactly the kind of stuff we want rich people to be doing with their money.

Someone's going to bring up the fact that you just described the broken window fallacy, so I'll preempt it:

1) It looks like you've fallen afoul of the broken window fallacy, but2) the broken window fallacy only has meaning if the money would otherwise have been spent on something more meaningful than fixing your metaphorical broken window. Considering that this is reality, not Metaphorland, the broken window fallacy hardly ever has bearing on any situation.

Technically the broken window fallacy doesn't apply. The BWF requires you break a previously unbroken window for the specific purpose of paying someone to fix it. It's a fallacy, in part, because it ignores the fact that you're destroying something of value at the same time you're creating all this theoretical economic benefit.

Nothing of value was destroyed in this case with the intention of creating economic activity in the recovery/salvage operation. (The loss of the booster is a sunk cost of the launch

If you look at BWF more broadly, the real problem is not destroying something useful for the sole purpose of creating work for someone to fix it. The problem is having someone do useless work (producing net zero wealth for the society), when they could instead be doing something useful.

Money is only wasted if you throw it in a pile and burn it. If it gets spent on something, regardless of how silly, then it stays in circulation; somebody will be using it to buy groceries, pay the mortgage, take his kids to the doctor, etc. A bunch of people will be employed on this project, and a bunch of companies will be selling goods and services. This is exactly the kind of stuff we want rich people to be doing with their money.

Absurd. Money is not some mineral. It's a concept used to quantify the value of work and products. And what we have here is a waste of both. Man hours and resources are being squandered.

Money is a representation of productivity. The economy keeps chugging along because when people spend money, the productivity they get out of what they bought with the money is greater than the productivity they spend to acquire the money. e.g. You earn $25/hr. You spend $100 buying a tool which will save you more than 4 hours of work in the long-run. So you're spending $100, but what you're spending it on is increasing your productivity by more than $100. That arbitrage is what makes the economy grow

Well, for one thing, there is a real, complete Saturn V rocket sitting in a large hanger in Houston. It was built and ready to launch when the Apollo program was cancelled. So even if we needed to look at one, we could simply go there and see one in more or less pristine condition. However, the rocket in Houston did sit outside for decades exposed to the elements, so it's not like they can stand it up, refuel it and send it up. It's there for whatever other purposes you could need and it has not been on

Why must the only reason to recover it be to reverse-engineer it? (Besides, we already have projects like the J2X [wikipedia.org] for re-mainstreaming Saturn V technlogy.) Why must you ignore the possibility that the very act of recovering this historical object doesn't in itself advance science through developing the technology to recover it? James Cameron's "voyage to the bottom of the sea" improved deep-diving technology sufficiently that I'm sure more people will go down there in the next few years.

Why must the only reason to recover it be to reverse-engineer it? (Besides, we already have projects like the J2X [wikipedia.org] for re-mainstreaming Saturn V technlogy.) Why must you ignore the possibility that the very act of recovering this historical object doesn't in itself advance science through developing the technology to recover it? James Cameron's "voyage to the bottom of the sea" improved deep-diving technology sufficiently that I'm sure more people will go down there in the next few years.

Like I said, the only value in recovering these engines is pure nostalgia. Sure, there may be tech gained from the recovery operation itself, but this could just as easily be gained by doing something productive, like figuring out a better way to seal deep water oil drilling leaks.

Don't get me wrong, nostalgia has value, but there could be more nostalgia and tech gained by figuring how to raise the Titanic or Lusitania.

Jeff Bezos is searching to salvage the Apollo 11 first stage just like Howard Hughs was mining manganese nodules with the Glomar Explorer. In other words, this is just a cover story for some C I A escapade.

Well there's the science angle of those engines seeing as how they were actually launched raising the questions of how the heat affected them, plus what affect did splash down have on them along with the affect of salt water on the hot/cold components. What kind of corrosion has the metal suffered over time? All sorts of questions like that are then able to be asked.

To me, the inability to even think of questions to be asked/ivestigated proves just how well the educational system in the United States is reaching the goal of no-one being able to think for themselves as both the government and corps simply want consumers that are as dumb as rocks. No wonder Science has pretty much died in the States though we still have a few that are innovating but they're getting locked out by Patents and such as quickly as possible.

The project is obviously about historic preservation, not science. Think it might be interesting to have the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria on display in a museum somewhere? How about the tools used to create the pyramids?

As a side note: if you ever get a chance to visit this exhibit, it is VERY impressive. It's hard not to stand next to this rocket and not be awed by the imagination required to conceive of, let alone build, this engineering marvel.

The AC has a problem with anyone but him deciding where to spend money, and expects that the government will have his/her/its priorities.

Seriously, this isn't science, it is treasure hunting for a more recent wreck than usual, but better documentation. To use a nerd analogy, this is buying Sir Alec Guinness's prop light saber hilt that he used in his death scene. Who wouldn't if they had the money? To use a car analogy, he is buying a Lambogini for the US (you CAN race them on closed tracks, or on the Bo

Can we please go back to decent central funding of scientific endeavour - particularly in space - rather than all this stupid pet projects from people who got lucky and have more money than sense? The Soviets dragged themselves from backwater feudal estate to technocratic superpower in 20 years - and China similarly - because they understood the value of education and science. They didn't think that "the market" would advance them.

Traveling faster than light - think about that! With one-click of course, the books are here before you know it. That would advance science and generate money for his business as well.

Yes, the Soviet Union is the model for becoming a technocratic superpower, if you don't mind the purges, wars, inability to produce food and a disregard for the environment or public health that would give any capitalist a run for their money. And then there's China, which really is another case of "superpower at any cost".

Hell, if I enslaved the entire population of Earth and pointed them at that purpose, we'd already be on Mars. Probably with a colony or two. Why? Because I wouldn't have to care if a

Yes, I also see this as rich people inspired by what we used to be able to do (send a man to the moon) and now spend lots of time and money on salvaging/restoring things of the past. I wonder who will inspire the next gen of Jeff Bezos now that USA no longer has a HSF that will match capabilities of Apollo and Shuttle (they are "working" on this but damn the funding is tight and the schedules long).

Under international maritime law, the objects remain the property of the original owner forever, unless that owner has formally abandoned claim to them. The salvor may go to court to claim a reward for recovering the property, but is not entitled the property itself.

Not so long ago some underwater treasure hunters retrieved gold from a spanish shipthat was at the bottom of the ocean for centuries. The Spanish Govt sued and got their treasure back, so I think it would be a good idea to get the permission of NASA before going after it.

Anyway I agree that there would be better ways Bezos could spen his money in order to further space exploration.

I think that congress should rewrite NASA's charter (or whatever it is called) to allow individuals and companies to make tax fr

You're correct. More 'pure' forms of Communism have been practiced in non-revisionist places than in the corrupt old USSR (since Stalin died and it all went 'rotten'.) Albania had a pretty good show going for awhile there. And North Korea is still pretty ideologically pure....

Jeff is probably a reasonable example of real capitalism - he works like mad, and he's really smart.

I'm wasting time on Slashdot at 12:47 AM - I would never expect to be rewarded with money for that kind of behaviour. Oh, but the UPS man arrived at my office today with a label tape cart from his warehouse that I ordered Monday night - actual shipping cost $1. That's genius.

Crony capitalists, on the other hand, deserve an extra special layer of hell. An

Hey, I'm going to make a troll comment that mentions jocks, but how will I sneakily cover my intentions? I know... I'll call myself 'JockTroll.' Now watch me reel those suckers in... oh shit, that won't work.

They're not underwater graveyards, so yes, they can be salvaged. I'm not aware of anywhere within US territorial waters that is that deep (and in fact, I think the cutoff for territorial waters is 2,500m depth), so yes. I think you're right, they are legally up for grabs for anybody who can salvage them.

I'd be more concerned about the environmental impact. Yes, it's *very* deep, but wildlife has a tendency to accumulate around features on the ocean floor, and it's quite possible that these rocket engines ha

I would hope they would take this into account and do at least a quick analysis of it before making the final decision to raise them. It's possible they're in an oceanic dead zone, in which case the impact would be negligible. On the other hand, it's just as likely that creatures big and small are using them for a home in which case it may not be feasible to raise a heavy rocket with twenty tons of biomass attached to it.

No. Under admiralty law, the objects remain the property of the original owner forever, unless that owner has formally abandoned claim to them. The salvor may claim a reward for recovering the property, but not the property itself.

how does one determine what a reasonable reward is when the value of the salvaged item is difficult to determine? can the owner simply offer a penny, or can the salvor hold the goods for ransom until he gets what he wants? such a right to claim reward seems ripe for abuse, unless it must be agreed upon in advance, in which case it is no longer a right really, given that in that case the salvor could be said to have the right to see the owner dance like a chicken (since he has the right to anything he can ag

That's what the courts (or arbitrators) are for. It is up to the court to decide what the amount of the reward will be, based on a long list of factors set out in the International Convention on Salvage (1989). Typically, the reward will be less than 50% of the value of the property recovered, although it can be more for sunken treasure. The salvor does not need to have (and in fact, must not have) a pre-existing agreement with the owner to have a pure (or "merit") salvage claim.

In general, if the owner of the vessel refuses to pay the reward arising from a successful salvage, the court can seize the property and order it to be sold at auction to satisfy the claim. Of course, there can be lots of details and exceptions in specific cases.

Is there a difference between something that was supposed to be in the water and then sank (like a ship or cargo from a ship) versus something that was thrown away into the water (like, arguably, these engines)?

This has been answered in another comment but, for convenience, I'll repeat: Under the International Convention On Salvage, 1989,

Property means any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and includes freight at risk.

Based on what I have read, the 1989 convention covers more kinds of property than than previous maritime law, which mostly dealt with vessels and their cargo. In light of that, and therefore pertinent to your question, it has been a principle of maritime law since ancient times that goods thrown overboard remain the property of the owner and do not become the property of anyone f

wasn't there a Spanish ship that was found but had to have it's cargo returned to Spain because it was in the service of the Spanish government?

Well, I am sure that they try that argument every time that anyone finds one of the lost treasure ships with the raped wealth of the Americas aboard. The last that I heard, the Atocha artifacts were mainly in the possession of the salvage company, not the Spanish government. They also tried that with the Amistad cargo, to no avail.

Most laws like this require you to look at it from the view of a reasonable person. It's reasonable to assume that an iPhone left on a bar for 20 minutes isn't abandoned. However, if it was left on the bar for forty years (and you knew the owner knew roughly where it was but never bothered to come look for it), then its reasonable to assume its abandoned. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd contacted NASA to at least give them a heads up or to get more information on exactly how they're constructed - that would

Maritime law does not work like that. There is no time limit. The owner must make a formal declaration of abandonment. NASA has not abandoned title to these engines. The salvor is entitled to a reward for recovering them, but cannot claim ownership of them.

So the salvor can claim a reward from NASA; presumably NASA would refuse to pay. Would not a court then grant ownership of the engines to the salvor in lieu of the reward? If not, how would any salvor ever hope to receive the reward to which he is entitled?

It is true that objects in international waters are covered under maritime salvage law. All the other statements above are false.

NASA has not made any express declaration abandoning title to the engines. There is no time limit. A salvor has a claim to a reward for recovering the property, but not a claim to the property itself. The claim for a reward is equivalent to a lien on the property.

Did you even read the article you linked? Nowhere in there does it say that the salvaged property becomes the property of the salvor. What it does say is that the salvor can go to court with a claim, and may be entitled to an award, rarely exceeding 50% of the value of the item.

There were a total of 13 Saturn V launches from 1967 to 1973. I'm not sure that even NASA knew *exactly* where the spent stages dropped, as they would have been tumbling down without parachutes, and no need for recovery beacons as used with the shuttle SRBs.

Once the engines are raised, the serial numbers will tell what mission they came from, assuming the serial numbers have survived 40 years on the ocean floor.

It will be a strange feeling when they pull >40 year old engines from the bottom of the ocean, but I bet that will be nothing compared to the next people to get back to the moon and visit and Apollo landing site. At the most optimistic they will be nearly 60 years old by then...

It's going to be very odd seeing a lunar lander with only the most basic computer system and nothing we would recognise as a display. Big flip switches and filament bulbs.

Except you won't. The control components of the landers were in the ascent stage that carried the astronauts back to the service module in orbit. All that remains on the surface are the descent stage on lander legs.

Having seen a couple of aircraft wrecks that have been salvaged, all they'll be able to retrieve is a hunk of junk. Restoring them to a state that's useful for exhibition will mean rebuilding most, if not all, of it. If that's the case anyway, why not borrow NASA's blueprints and build a replica or two?As an added bonus, the replica materials can be chosen to be easier to work with than the originals, since you're not going to build flightworthy examples. E.g. replace titanium with aluminium.

I grew up in Houston, trips to Johnson were almost every weekend. I did get to sit in one of the Lunar modules. I have pics of it somewhere as well. This was back when they encouraged you to touch things there.

Having seen a couple of aircraft wrecks that have been salvaged, all they'll be able to retrieve is a hunk of junk.

Having seen pictures of World War 2 aircraft, recovered form the sea after 70 years, that looked like the only restoration needed was to hose off the mud and straighten the propeller (see image [luftwaffe.no]), I'd say neither of us have any real idea what condition they'll be in.

Basically, it's all about what angle the S-I stage hit the water 40 years ago. Cold deep sea is comparatively kind to aircraft alloys, although post-recovery conservation is a massive problem.

Bezos stressed that he is using private funds to try to raise the F-1 engines from their resting places 14,000 feet (4,267 meters) below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, and that they remain the property of NASA

If they are in international waters aren't they subject to maritime salvage law? How can they be the property of NASA, if they knew where they were and never retrieved them, why would they still belong to NASA is raised?

If they are in international waters aren't they subject to maritime salvage law? How can they be the property of NASA, if they knew where they were and never retrieved them, why would they still belong to NASA is raised?

Because that's what international maritime salvage law actually says. Someone who salvages your property can claim a reward for recovering your property and establish a lien on it in order to get the reward, but neither the recovery nor the lien makes the property theirs.

I've been thinking for a long that if I won an absurd amount of lottery money, I'd use some of it to retrieve the "stage zero" engines from an Atlas launch and put'em in my den. My own space-age artifact! Of course, the wife would say, You're going to put what in here???"